Re: Best name for function to create cross-style noteheads

[Marc Hohl]

Carl Sorensen schrieb:
> On 7/23/09 12:28 PM, "Kieren MacMillan" <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
>   
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> >     
> > > is there a clear advantage to having a smaller namespace?
> > >       
> > No need to maintain crossrefs and aliases in the documentation.
> > [Might not be a huge thing, but it's a "clear advantage".]
> >     
>
> I don't think it's necessary to maintain crossrefs.
>
> We have instrument-specific sections of the manual.  Harmonics for string
> instruments can be introduced as \harmonic in the string instrument part of
> the notation.  Silent presses (natural resonance) for keyboards can be
> taught in the keyboard part of the manual.  The fact that both use
> diamond-shaped noteheads is irrelevant, as far as the manual is concerned, I
> think.
>
> Similarly, we can notate keySlap in woodwinds and deadNote in fretted
> strings.  The fact that both use xNoteHead is irrelevant as far as the
> manual is concerned, IMO.
>
>   
I think it would be the easiest way to define a neutral name first.
Personally, I like the idea of \xHead, \xHeadOn and \xHeadOff.

We can add the desired aliases later (maybe it will lead to a file
simply designed for this purpose, called aliases.ly?).

Perhaps there is even a possibility to create a documentation
comparable to the feta font glyphs which is generated automatically
from the contents of the file, so there are all cross references included
(I don't know if this would work).


Marc
> Thanks,
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>